I'm in no way, shape or form condoning that a thread like this be made for all the films, but I think one more for Burton's 1992 follow up would be reasonable.

For me I feel that what they absolutely got right was the atmosphere. A lot of people bash "Returns" for being a Burton film over a Batman film, but I disagree. It's Batman with Burton's visual styling laid over it, but it's still Batman to me.

They also got right something that Burton commented on in the SE DVD Documentary, which was the level of Batman's presence in Gotham. Not necessarily how much screentime he was given but the fact that whether he was on screen or not you could feel him lurking around Gotham, keeping ever vigilant on the city. The scene of him driving the Batmobile through the deserted streets helps this idea. That even if he's not fighting with the Penguin or Catwoman he's out and about doing something, whether it's down in the Batcave digging for information on Cobblepot or patroling the streets in silence.

As for what was wrong, I only have one technical issue.

And that's that out of all the theatrical films, "Batman Returns" Gotham City, while brilliantly designed by Bo Welch, is for me the least like a City. There isn't a feeling of depth to Gotham in this film. It gives off that feeling that it IS in fact an interior set. If you watch the scene after Batman crashes the Bat Ski-Boat through the Arctic World itself and topples upon the Penguin's Duck-Mobile...if you listen...while Batman is climbing out of the Ski Boat and he props his hands onto the canopy to stand up, you can clearly hear some reverberation, despite the fact that this is supposed to be taking place in an exterior setting.

A little nit picking, I know, but I wish the Gotham "BR" actually felt like a city. They tended to stay in one place the entirety of the film, which was Gotham Plaza...surrounded by the Shreck Office/Department Store and the main streets throughout the film.